President Trump and US politics catchall

[fishfoodie]

Paywalled.

I believe he's suggested that he' will countersue for 3 billion.

Did Rudy get his law degree from T***p University ?

It would explain a lot.

He apparently believes his right to free speech allows him to defame people and businesses without consequence. Should be an interesting day in court; the judge could throw it out inside half an hour

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to shout Fire in a crowded theater.

But what would he know

Free speech is a fundamental right; but so is the right of an individual to protect their reputation.

[Edit] and given that people working for Dominion started receiving death threats after these lies started getting thrown around; I think OWH's quote almost becomes a literal description of Rudy's offense.

[TB63]

Giuliani, who is also a host for WABC radio, issued the following statement:

“Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.” – Rudy Giuliani

[fishfoodie]

Giuliani, who is also a host for WABC radio, issued the following statement:

“Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.” – Rudy Giuliani

Isn't this another example of that fine legal mind; that brought so many successful cases, to demonstrate how the election was stolen ?

As I understand it; the big, big, difference between Civil, & Criminal; is that in Civil; you're effectively Guilty, until proven innocent; & not the other way around. So Rudy needs to demonstrate that he wasn't lying; & that he had proof of his allegations, when he made them; or else he is, as they say; fucked !

Even if every word he said was true; if he didn't know they were true, when he made them; then Dominions case is proven.

[Saint]

Giuliani, who is also a host for WABC radio, issued the following statement:

“Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.” – Rudy Giuliani

Isn't this another example of that fine legal mind; that brought so many successful cases, to demonstrate how the election was stolen ?

As I understand it; the big, big, difference between Civil, & Criminal; is that in Civil; you're effectively Guilty, until proven innocent; & not the other way around. So Rudy needs to demonstrate that he wasn't lying; & that he had proof of his allegations, when he made them; or else he is, as they say; fucked !

Even if every word he said was true; if he didn't know they were true, when he made them; then Dominions case is proven.

Like I said- a judge might give him half an hour. He's in very deep trouble right now.

Fox News understood this when Dominion issued their warning, which is why they backed off very quickly

[stemoc]

looks like in america the best way to shutup republican relitards is to sue their ass for money they do not have

[fishfoodie]

Giuliani, who is also a host for WABC radio, issued the following statement:

“Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.” – Rudy Giuliani

Isn't this another example of that fine legal mind; that brought so many successful cases, to demonstrate how the election was stolen ?

As I understand it; the big, big, difference between Civil, & Criminal; is that in Civil; you're effectively Guilty, until proven innocent; & not the other way around. So Rudy needs to demonstrate that he wasn't lying; & that he had proof of his allegations, when he made them; or else he is, as they say; fucked !

Even if every word he said was true; if he didn't know they were true, when he made them; then Dominions case is proven.

Like I said- a judge might give him half an hour. He's in very deep trouble right now.

Fox News understood this when Dominion issued their warning, which is why they backed off very quickly

I'd be surprised if any Judge gave him that long.

Dominion; as you'd expect, played it by very reasonable rules; they gave the loons a couple of warnings, & gave them the opportunity to walk away with a mumbled apology; but the loons kept shouting.

I don't think this will get past the court steps; but if it does; he is truly fucked; as he'll get put in the witness box, & will either have to testify to the last four years of lies, or get tossed in prison for perjury, or contempt; & no one in the GOP want this fuckwit looking for a plea bargain.

The four families must really be asking themselves how the hell this loon put them inside.

[Rinkals]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

[Biffer]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

Already proved by manual recounts in some areas I would have thought?

[JM2K6]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

Eh, part of the case is that Guiliani didn't bring this stuff up in court as he knew there was no actual evidence of it, but was willing to spread baseless accusations outside of court.

[Saint]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

It should be reasonably easy for Dominion to prove that they aren't owned by the Venezuelan government, don;t have links to Antifa, the manual recounts should be proof enough that they didn't "flip" votes, and the harm to the companies rep and it's employees is pretty self evident.

[Biffer]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

It should be reasonably easy for Dominion to prove that they aren't owned by the Venezuelan government, don;t have links to Antifa, the manual recounts should be proof enough that they didn't "flip" votes, and the harm to the companies rep and it's employees is pretty self evident.

Yeah, but they have to prove that Giuliani knowingly lied. It’s not the lie part that’s important, it’s the knowingly. That fact he was spreading lies isn’t relevant. If he believed them to be true, then you don’t get defamation in a US court. You can prove they’re lies all day long, that doesn’t matter. What you have to prove is that Giuliani KNEW they were lies. That’s virtually impossible. It doesn’t matter what he’d seen or been told, he could have still believed they were true., even in the face of all evidence. There’s plenty of evidence out there that he’s barshit Fùcking crazy, so it’s not a push for a court to decide he believed them to be true in the face o fall the evidence. In which case, no defamation.

[JM2K6]

I'm not so sure.

I believe that the onus, in the States, is for the claimant to prove that the libel was false and damaging.

I think it may be difficult for Dominion to prove that their software didn't discard ballots, even if it does seem unlikely.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and I hope it does put the issue of a stolen election to bed, but I fear it may have the opposite effect if the Judge rules against Dominion.

It should be reasonably easy for Dominion to prove that they aren't owned by the Venezuelan government, don;t have links to Antifa, the manual recounts should be proof enough that they didn't "flip" votes, and the harm to the companies rep and it's employees is pretty self evident.

Yeah, but they have to prove that Giuliani knowingly lied. It’s not the lie part that’s important, it’s the knowingly. That fact he was spreading lies isn’t relevant. If he believed them to be true, then you don’t get defamation in a US court. You can prove they’re lies all day long, that doesn’t matter. What you have to prove is that Giuliani KNEW they were lies. That’s virtually impossible. It doesn’t matter what he’d seen or been told, he could have still believed they were true., even in the face of all evidence. There’s plenty of evidence out there that he’s barshit Fùcking crazy, so it’s not a push for a court to decide he believed them to be true in the face o fall the evidence. In which case, no defamation.

The fact that he didn't make those claims in court when he had the opportunity to, and instead admitted there was no evidence, will go a long way to proving that, I suspect.

[Biffer]

It should be reasonably easy for Dominion to prove that they aren't owned by the Venezuelan government, don;t have links to Antifa, the manual recounts should be proof enough that they didn't "flip" votes, and the harm to the companies rep and it's employees is pretty self evident.

Yeah, but they have to prove that Giuliani knowingly lied. It’s not the lie part that’s important, it’s the knowingly. That fact he was spreading lies isn’t relevant. If he believed them to be true, then you don’t get defamation in a US court. You can prove they’re lies all day long, that doesn’t matter. What you have to prove is that Giuliani KNEW they were lies. That’s virtually impossible. It doesn’t matter what he’d seen or been told, he could have still believed they were true., even in the face of all evidence. There’s plenty of evidence out there that he’s barshit Fùcking crazy, so it’s not a push for a court to decide he believed them to be true in the face o fall the evidence. In which case, no defamation.

The fact that he didn't make those claims in court when he had the opportunity to, and instead admitted there was no evidence, will go a long way to proving that, I suspect.

Nah, just because he knew he didn’t have enough evidence to prove what he believed in court doesn’t prove he didn’t believe it.

Lot of negatives in that sentence, sorry.

[Uncle fester]

Am with Biffer here. US allows a surprising amount of leeway with these kind of cases.
Look at the Elon Musk p*edo case for an example.

[Sandstorm]

Am with Biffer here. US allows a surprising amount of leeway with these kind of cases.
Look at the Elon Musk p*edo case for an example.

You mean all the lawyers get their (expensive) day in court no matter how ridiculous the case may be?

[fishfoodie]

Am with Biffer here. US allows a surprising amount of leeway with these kind of cases.
Look at the Elon Musk p*edo case for an example.

You mean all the lawyers get their (expensive) day in court no matter how ridiculous the case may be?

Is it possible for a lawyer to welsh on themselves ?

[Sinkers]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55820610

Ho Hum

[robmatic]

Yeah, but they have to prove that Giuliani knowingly lied. It’s not the lie part that’s important, it’s the knowingly. That fact he was spreading lies isn’t relevant. If he believed them to be true, then you don’t get defamation in a US court. You can prove they’re lies all day long, that doesn’t matter. What you have to prove is that Giuliani KNEW they were lies. That’s virtually impossible. It doesn’t matter what he’d seen or been told, he could have still believed they were true., even in the face of all evidence. There’s plenty of evidence out there that he’s barshit Fùcking crazy, so it’s not a push for a court to decide he believed them to be true in the face o fall the evidence. In which case, no defamation.

The fact that he didn't make those claims in court when he had the opportunity to, and instead admitted there was no evidence, will go a long way to proving that, I suspect.

Nah, just because he knew he didn’t have enough evidence to prove what he believed in court doesn’t prove he didn’t believe it.

Lot of negatives in that sentence, sorry.

You are correct that defamation is difficult in the States but the key issue for Giuliani is whether he made the claims with 'actual malice', which would mean he made the claims knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. Being unwilling to make the statements in court that he was making outside, and when the statements were factual or supposedly based on private knowledge, goes a long way to showing that he perhaps had doubt. Might not be enough to win the case, but might be enough for Dominion to get to look at his emails and text messages and then it gets interesting.

[fishfoodie]

I wonder will the GOP listen to their own voters; or will they just continue to listen to the scumbags & loons who brought them to this point ?

Meet Some Of The 4,600 Colorado Republicans Who Quit The Party After The US Capitol Riot


Lyle Darrah was on a conference call at work when the riot at the U.S. Capitol started on Jan. 6. When his boss mentioned what was happening, he turned on news coverage — and immediately felt his last allegiance to the Republican Party slipping away.

“I was completely shocked and ashamed. That’s not how I think of the Republicans — who we were, and who we are,” he said. “It’s something I felt I could no longer be in support of.”

That night, he talked with his wife over dinner at their home in the Weld County town of Mead. Darrah had been a lifelong Republican, while his spouse and children are Democrats — the kind of family that joked about canceling out each other’s votes.

When their talk was done, Darrah, age 49, sat in his living room and pulled up the state's voter registration website. And then, like thousands of other Coloradans in the wake of the insurrection, he left the Republican Party.

“I think it should be a signal,” said Darrah, a software company director who voted for former-President Donald Trump in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020.

[Hal Jordan]

They'll listen when the donors stop paying. And even then they'll claim we should move on for the sake of unity.

[Un Pilier]

I met Rudi Giuliani when he was still a hero after his impressive stint as New York Mayor.

That seems a long time ago now.

[fishfoodie]

They'll listen when the donors stop paying. And even then they'll claim we should move on for the sake of unity.

I don’t know about your neck of the woods, but I can tell you that here people have a very short memory span paired with a selective one.

A lot of the big company donors have already suspended their donations; they probably will re-start by September, but I think they'll want to see some signs of a direction of travel, before they restart; even if only to give themselves a fig leaf of justification for the decision to restart.

The majority of voters might have a ridiculously short attention span; but as I've repeatedly pointed out, back on PR; the 80% who vote religiously for whatever dog shit candidates their party stands, are irrelevant. The elections are decided by the 20% in the middle, who are open to persuasion one way or the other; & they do pay attention. The donors also pay attention; & if you want proof of that, just look at the disappearance of the likes of Sarah Palin. Once darling of Far Right, & who everyone else looked at, & wondered how such a loon ever got on the ticket. She sunk the GOPs chance of Election that year.

The solid GOP voters would have happily voted for her every day of the week; but the people who could decide the elections knew a loon when the say one; & weren't enthusiastic about one being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. The big donors saw this afterward, & while she kept on plugging, she was unelectable thereafter, so they abandoned her.

[Raggs]

How do you explain that 20% voting Trump the first time?

[fishfoodie]

How do you explain that 20% voting Trump the first time?

Hillary Clinton embodied everything people hate about dynasty Politics, & people had hated her from back when Bill was in the WH.

She was a shit candidate, & as I said at the time; I thanked God the GOP had chosen the shitgibbon as their candidate; as he was the only one she stood a chance against. Don't forget; she still won the popular vote; it was just the cluster fuck that is the EC that gifted him the win.

[Hal Jordan]

To back up a week being a long time in politics, witness the 45 GOP senators actions this week.

And yes, the electorate has a stunningly bad memory - look at Kentucky under that uberworm McConnell. Consistently in the bottom of the rankings for the good stuff, consistently near the top for the bad. Yet they keep returning the stain on democracy time after time.

[GogLais]

How do you explain that 20% voting Trump the first time?

it was just the cluster fuck that is the EC that gifted him the win.

Well there we are, it's the United States, not the United State of America.

[Rinkals]

I see that Trump is having trouble with his legal team defending him on the Impeachment charges.

He apparently wants to base his defence on his belief that the election was fraudulent rather than whether he incited the insurrection.

Not that it matters, but he clearly knows that he did instigate the storming of the Capitol: it's just that he feels that it was justified.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... it-reports

I'm inclined to think that the impeachment trial will be hugely damaging to the GOP, particularly if, as expected, they don't vote to impeach.

[Torquemada 1420]

I see that Trump is having trouble with his legal team defending him on the Impeachment charges.

He apparently wants to base his defence on his belief that the election was fraudulent rather than whether he incited the insurrection.

Not that it matters, but he clearly knows that he did instigate the storming of the Capitol: it's just that he feels that it was justified.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... it-reports

I'm inclined to think that the impeachment trial will be hugely damaging to the GOP, particularly if, as expected, they don't vote to impeach.

Basically they've dumped in so it appears even the highest paid ambulance chasers think he is beyond defending.

[Hal Jordan]

I see that Trump is having trouble with his legal team defending him on the Impeachment charges.

He apparently wants to base his defence on his belief that the election was fraudulent rather than whether he incited the insurrection.

Not that it matters, but he clearly knows that he did instigate the storming of the Capitol: it's just that he feels that it was justified.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... it-reports

I'm inclined to think that the impeachment trial will be hugely damaging to the GOP, particularly if, as expected, they don't vote to impeach.

Unfortunately they will be the same - ruthless in fucking over the poor yet convincing them that it's in the best interests of the downtrodden to vote for them, utterly uncooperative with the Democrats whilst squealing about moving on and unity and, at state level, they have already brought in over 100 pieces of legislation to disenfranchise people likely to vote Democrat. The postal vote is particularly up against it.

[fishfoodie]

I see that Trump is having trouble with his legal team defending him on the Impeachment charges.

He apparently wants to base his defence on his belief that the election was fraudulent rather than whether he incited the insurrection.

Not that it matters, but he clearly knows that he did instigate the storming of the Capitol: it's just that he feels that it was justified.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... it-reports

I'm inclined to think that the impeachment trial will be hugely damaging to the GOP, particularly if, as expected, they don't vote to impeach.

Basically they've dumped in so it appears even the highest paid ambulance chasers think he is beyond defending.

It's not exactly that.

He's insisting on a defense that requires his lawyers to present, what they know are lies, to the court.

It's very difficult to find a decent lawyer, who is prepared to be disbarred, for a client who probably won't pay their fees.

[Lobby]

I see mad Rudy has gone too far now even for Steve Bannon.

On Bannon’s recent War Room podcast, Giuliani claimed that the Lincoln Project (Republicans against Trump) planned the assault on the Capitol to discredit Trump. Bannon had to stop him, and told him couldn’t make accusations like that without any evidence.

Anyway, the Lincoln Project are now threatening to sue him for defamation, and their letter is really worth reading

[dpedin]

I see mad Rudy has gone too far now even for Steve Bannon.

On Bannon’s recent War Room podcast, Giuliani claimed that the Lincoln Project (Republicans against Trump) planned the assault on the Capitol to discredit Trump. Bannon had to stop him, and told him couldn’t make accusations like that without any evidence.

Anyway, the Lincoln Project are now threatening to sue him for defamation, and their letter is really worth reading

Apparently means little legally but it is a feckin good laugh! I think the hair dye has got into his ears and destroyed Rudy's brain. No worries though because Trumps ex lawyers could pick up the case, assuming they want it?

[fishfoodie]

The gift that keeps on giving.

It turns out that a significant bunch of the cretinous traitors who stormed the Capitol .... hadn't bothered to vote in the Election they claim was stolen

If only the fuck-noddle they worship; hadn't primed them all, to believe that the Election was rigged; they might have gotten of their arses & voted; & then he might have won.

They were there to "Stop the Steal" and to keep the President they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.

One was Donovan Crowl, an ex-Marine who charged toward a Capitol entrance in paramilitary garb on January 6 as the Pro-Trump crowd chanted "who's our President?"

Federal authorities later identified Crowl, 50, as a member of a self-styled militia organization in his home state of Ohio and affiliated with the extremist group the Oath Keepers.

...

Many involved in the insurrection professed to be motivated by patriotism, falsely declaring that Trump was the rightful winner of the election. Yet at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived. They came from states around the country and ranged in age from 21 to 65.

To determine who voted in November, CNN obtained voting records for more than 80 of the initial arrestees. Most voted in the presidential election, and while many were registered Republicans, a handful were registered as Democrats in those jurisdictions that provided party information -- though who someone votes for is not publicly disclosed. Public access to voter history records varies by state, and CNN was unable to view the records of some of those charged.

10% of the thick cunts; 10% !

[Ted.]

The gift that keeps on giving.

It turns out that a significant bunch of the cretinous traitors who stormed the Capitol .... hadn't bothered to vote in the Election they claim was stolen

If only the fuck-noddle they worship; hadn't primed them all, to believe that the Election was rigged; they might have gotten of their arses & voted; & then he might have won.

They were there to "Stop the Steal" and to keep the President they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.

One was Donovan Crowl, an ex-Marine who charged toward a Capitol entrance in paramilitary garb on January 6 as the Pro-Trump crowd chanted "who's our President?"

Federal authorities later identified Crowl, 50, as a member of a self-styled militia organization in his home state of Ohio and affiliated with the extremist group the Oath Keepers.

...

Many involved in the insurrection professed to be motivated by patriotism, falsely declaring that Trump was the rightful winner of the election. Yet at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived. They came from states around the country and ranged in age from 21 to 65.

To determine who voted in November, CNN obtained voting records for more than 80 of the initial arrestees. Most voted in the presidential election, and while many were registered Republicans, a handful were registered as Democrats in those jurisdictions that provided party information -- though who someone votes for is not publicly disclosed. Public access to voter history records varies by state, and CNN was unable to view the records of some of those charged.

10% of the thick cunts; 10% !

I'm surprised it's not higher.

[Monkey Magic]

The gift that keeps on giving.

It turns out that a significant bunch of the cretinous traitors who stormed the Capitol .... hadn't bothered to vote in the Election they claim was stolen

If only the fuck-noddle they worship; hadn't primed them all, to believe that the Election was rigged; they might have gotten of their arses & voted; & then he might have won.

They were there to "Stop the Steal" and to keep the President they revered in office, yet records show that some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol did not vote in the very election they were protesting.

One was Donovan Crowl, an ex-Marine who charged toward a Capitol entrance in paramilitary garb on January 6 as the Pro-Trump crowd chanted "who's our President?"

Federal authorities later identified Crowl, 50, as a member of a self-styled militia organization in his home state of Ohio and affiliated with the extremist group the Oath Keepers.

...

Many involved in the insurrection professed to be motivated by patriotism, falsely declaring that Trump was the rightful winner of the election. Yet at least eight of the people who are now facing criminal charges for their involvement in the events at the Capitol did not vote in the November 2020 presidential election, according to an analysis of voting records from the states where protestors were arrested and those states where public records show they have lived. They came from states around the country and ranged in age from 21 to 65.

To determine who voted in November, CNN obtained voting records for more than 80 of the initial arrestees. Most voted in the presidential election, and while many were registered Republicans, a handful were registered as Democrats in those jurisdictions that provided party information -- though who someone votes for is not publicly disclosed. Public access to voter history records varies by state, and CNN was unable to view the records of some of those charged.

10% of the thick cunts; 10% !

I'm surprised it's not higher.

While this and the NBA players not voting and protesting is a bit ridiculous, surely it depends where they are. If a few thousand democrats in California don't vote it won't make a huge difference and would be same for the true red states

[Ted.]

The gift that keeps on giving.

It turns out that a significant bunch of the cretinous traitors who stormed the Capitol .... hadn't bothered to vote in the Election they claim was stolen

If only the fuck-noddle they worship; hadn't primed them all, to believe that the Election was rigged; they might have gotten of their arses & voted; & then he might have won.



10% of the thick cunts; 10% !

I'm surprised it's not higher.

While this and the NBA players not voting and protesting is a bit ridiculous, surely it depends where they are. If a few thousand democrats in California don't vote it won't make a huge difference and would be same for the true red states

Yes, that is probably true. IMO, it speaks to their hypocrisy though.

[Sinkers]

Or their igonarance and/ or gullibility.

Repubs seem more and more to fall into one of three categories:
1. Mr. Burns
2. Karen
3. The bloke who was abducted and anally probed by aliens.

[JM2K6]

I'm surprised it's not higher.

While this and the NBA players not voting and protesting is a bit ridiculous, surely it depends where they are. If a few thousand democrats in California don't vote it won't make a huge difference and would be same for the true red states

Yes, that is probably true. IMO, it speaks to their hypocrisy though.

If your faith in government or the process has gone, what's the point of voting? I don't think it's particularly difficult to see why either group has large numbers of non-voters.

[fishfoodie]

You really have to wonder about the US.

Pondscum like Rudy, & MTG can peddle dangerous consiracy theories, & flat out malicious lies, but Politicians can go to court to stop teachers talking about going on strike.

The District has asked a judge to stop the Washington Teachers’ Union from engaging in any talks about a potential strike as the city attempts to bring teachers and students back to school buildings Tuesday for the first time since March, according to a request for a temporary restraining order filed in D.C. Superior Court on Monday.

The move comes on the heels of marathon union meetings this past week in which members discussed possible strategies — including not showing up at school buildings and continuing with remote instruction — to oppose the city’s plan to return 45 percent of the teaching workforce to schools. The union’s members have not voted to authorize a strike, nor has leadership decided to pursue one, according to Elizabeth Davis, president of the Washington Teachers’ Union.

Davis said she is organizing a vote this week to determine what, if any, actions union members want to take against what they feel would be an unsafe return to school buildings.

In dispute, arbitrator rules largely in favors D.C. Public Schools, clearing the way for schools to reopen on time.

“Our members have not taken a strike vote,” Davis said Monday. “The [Washington Teachers’ Union] is prepared to listen to what actions members want to take. However, the union is insisting that all 5,000 members have a vote to decide on this decision and not just a few.”

If a judge approves the restraining order request, and the union members defy it, union leaders could be held in contempt of court if the city decided to pursue those charges. City officials said a hearing could come as early as Tuesday morning and the restraining order would last for 14 days.

In the District, it is illegal for government employees to go on strike. The city’s collective bargaining contract with the Washington Teachers’ Union prevents the union “from encouraging or supporting strikes or similar work stoppages,” according to the filing for a temporary restraining order.

[Rinkals]

It does seem as though money was at the heart of Trump changing lawyers in mid stream.

https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-fees- ... ce=twitter

He was said to be livid when Bowers came back to him with a total budget of $3 million. Trump called the South Carolina attorney and eventually negotiated him down to $1 million.

All of this infuriated Trump and his political team, who think the case will be straightforward, given 45 Republican senators already voted to dismiss the trial on the basis it's unconstitutional to convict a former president on impeachment charges.

The guy is as thick as pigshit.

Yes, the result of the trial is probably pre-ordained, but it's by no means guaranteed.

And even if they don't find him guilty, the exposure and the additional evidence will probably not look good for Trump or for the GOP, which is why Lindsey Graham and others are scrambling to limit the evidence that will be heard.